Cannabis Indica

thcscience_admin
< June 18 June 20 >

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. and there is agreement that this article needs some work and clean-up. Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tosin Igho[edit]

Tosin Igho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing to pass WP:GNG, WP:BIO. The article is written like WP:PROMO with mentions on winning one local award, but there is no significant coverage, apart from some promotional-like material in local news media. His career is quite limited and without wide geographic scope. Chiserc (talk) 08:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:49, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. The article definitely needs to be rewritten and properly formatted to comply with WP:MOS. Having said that, the subject has directed a few notable films, with some of them having their own Wikipedia pages. His films Seven and Nneka the Pretty Serpent have been critically reviewed.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 03:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Battlestar Galactica characters. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 23:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Louanne Katraine[edit]

Louanne Katraine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable secondary sources cited in article, and I was unable to find any. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:48, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Piotrus. This topic receives only WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs, but a redirect is a cheap way to preserve something. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:42, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to They Liked You Better When You Were Dead. Liz Read! Talk! 23:39, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Palahniuk's Laughter[edit]

Palahniuk's Laughter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSONG. UtherSRG (talk) 12:59, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to They Liked You Better When You Were Dead: Found an issue of Music Week listing the song as charting at #13 on their TV Airplay chart but I have no idea if we ever use that one. Even so, I found nothing else on the song. The EP was an indie release from a band who later signed to a major, but I doubt they were getting significant coverage when they were working with a label the size of Deep Elm in the mid-2000s. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 02:08, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there support for a Redirection?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm good with redirect. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:53, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. There appears to be agreement that while the title of this article is not ideal, the underlying topic is notable. Further discussion of how to rename the article can proceed on the talk page and/or with a move request. signed, Rosguill talk 01:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Arabian Houses[edit]

List of Arabian Houses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:OR, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:UNSOURCED for 19 years. Fails WP:LISTCRIT with vague/ambiguous scope major royal families and their allies in the Arabian Peninsula in the 20th century. Why "major" (not in title)? When does a "royal family" qualify for "major" and when not? Are "houses" the same as "royal families"? Why are we limiting ourselves to "the 20th century", but sneakily adding dates from before 1900 and after 2000 in all the time? Why do we include "allies"? What kind of "allies"? Do they need to be "royal families" too or can the U.S. government also count as an "ally" of the House of Saud, for example? What do we mean by "the Arabian Peninsula"? Apparently that includes Bahrain, all of Iraq and all of Jordan...
I'm separating this AfD from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Iranian dynasties and countries, because it doesn't really fit that bundle, and should be assessed on its own terms. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility, Geography, and Lists. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list itself probably doesn't fail WP:LISTCRIT but the way it's been defined in the article might. Houses are the same as royal families - that's pretty obvious from context. The big question here is whether the list can be fixed without deleting it by redefining it, and I think it probably could. SportingFlyer T·C 14:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you got a suggestion? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I currently think it's best to WP:TNT this; start over with RS and an unambiguous scope. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As I said, it's not my favourite thing - and I agree it needs work (which I'm not in a position to do right now) - probably as 'List of Arabian royal families', where 'Arabia' is generally defined as GCC + Iraq, Jordan, Syria and Yemen. The sourcing isn't really an issue, as the list is linked out to sourced material but I do note some articles around this (Tribes of Arabia) are an appalling mess of ridiculous assertion with dubious sourcing ('Al Sirhan' or 'Al Andalusi' are not sources worth citing without specific page numbers, editions etc). I would agree the 'allies' can go, too. But the list does fulfil a function not otherwise fulfilled and I'd seek an alternative to deletion which, in this case, would be retention and cleanup. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So the list could be brought in line with WP:CSC #1? Fair enough, but we still need WP:RS to establish the scope, and that these items are regularly grouped as a group. No article can rely entirely on the sources of another article (WP:CIRC). I still think WP:TNT per WP:NOW is a better idea than keeping this stuff like this for another 19 years. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:15, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CIRC doesn't really apply to lists where the article the list points to is properly sourced - it's to make sure that articles aren't self-referential. And WP:TNT is only a reason for deletion in limited instances that don't really apply here. Deletion is not cleanup. SportingFlyer T·C 16:45, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I partially agree, but even if I were to fully agree, we still need WP:RS to establish the scope, and that these items are regularly grouped as a group. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Alexandermcnabb's decision. CastJared (talk) 15:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Middle East, Bahrain, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but remove "their allies" and "20th century" from the criteria (also no capital H if the title is kept). There are no allies listed (plus it's a fuzzy criterion), and 20th century is purely arbitrary. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I like your suggestions; they are good first steps. How would you define 'Arabian Peninsula'? Does it include Bahrain, Socotra, other islands, all of Iraq, all of Jordan, all of Kuwait etc.? As long as we've got no definition, this is a fuzzy criterion as well. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:02, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Arabia generally refers to GCC + Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Yemen. Socotra part of Yemen. However, Arabian peninsula is GCC and Yemen. GCC = Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, Oman, Saudi in clockwise order... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:29, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting, because the main article Arabian Peninsula shows the following two maps:
  • Arabian Peninsula
    Arabian Peninsula
  • The constituent countries of Arabia
    The constituent countries of Arabia
No Syria in either "Arabian Peninsula" or "Arabia". No Jordan in "Arabia", or only part of Jordan in "Arabian Peninsula". No Iraq in "Arabia", or only part of Iraq in "Arabian Peninsula". Therefore, "Arabian" in the title "List of Arabian Houses", and "Arabian Peninsula" in the opening sentence, may refer to two different areas. Moreover, you include "Jordan, Syria, Iraq" in "Arabia", but the second map does not. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:28, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh, WP:OTHERSTUFF... As someone living in Arabia and responsible for many, many publications here over the decades such as 'The Arabian Computer Guide', I can only give you my understanding of 'Arabia'. The peninsula is easier, as I said, GCC+Yemen and nicely defined by the landmass. In any case, you could neatly handle that with 'List of Arab royal families', 'cos that's GCC + Jordan right now, but Syria AND Iraq used to have royal families. Arabian sits easier with me because it's a geo and not an ethnicity, which I find more comfortable - purely personally. But whatever is decided, that's talk page stuff and not AfD stuff... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: The people of the Arabian peninsula are also unanimous that the wee sea up there is the Arabian Gulf, but WP defines it as the Persian Gulf, which shows just how much we in the West care about how they define themselves... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:57, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you can cite WP:RS which support your geographical definition of either 'Arabia' or 'Arabian Peninsula', we've got somewhere to go, and we could save this article from deletion. They don't have to be 'Western' sources, they don't even have to be written in English per se; as long as they are reliable, verifiable, and relevant for our purposes here. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The geographical scope of the article isn't a reason for deletion!!! As @SportingFlyer mentions above, deletion is not cleanup!!! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:17, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. If a geographical scope is self-invented, arbitrary, subjective, not supported by reliable sources, or otherwise not commonly accepted, this can be grounds for deletion of a category, article, template, or otherwise. Examples:
  • There is no consensus on how Europe should be divided in "North, East, South, West, Central", let alone "Northwestern" etc. So the following categories were recently deleted:
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 7#Category:Northwestern European countries
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 7#Category:Flora of Northwestern Europe
And so on. I nominated all of these pages for deletion myself. As you can see, I've got no problem deleting pages about "Western" regions if there is no consensus in "Western" sources about what, say, "Northwestern Europe" even means. (According to some definitions, it includes my own country of residence; according to other definitions, it doesn't). If there is no consensus on what either "Arabia" or "Arabian Peninsula" means, neither can be used as a geographical scope. It would just be ambiguous, subjective, arbitrary, and unsupported, and thus continue to fail WP:LISTCRIT: Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. Avoid original or arbitrary criteria that would synthesize a list that is not plainly verifiable in reliable sources. As long as a list cannot meet the WP:LISTCRIT, it is liable to deletion. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is a consensus to Keep this article but I'm relisting as the article itself, its content, sources and scope, is still being considered. It seems like the condition of the article is in flux so more consideration is warranted instead of a closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:37, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I tentatively agree. If we can reach agreement on the geographical scope, then pretty much all issues that I see are or can be solved. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
List of Arab royal families. I reckon that's us, right there. Would include historical royalty (Syria, Mecca, Iraq, Egypt) could potentially include Hormuz. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Arab is way too vague and ambiguous. It can mean anything from geography to language to ethnicity. I know for a fact that people will start including royal families in North Africa from Mauretania down to Sudan and perhaps even Somalia and further south to East Africa if we rename it Arab. And I think it's very likely they will eventually include parts of Portugal, Spain, Italy, Cyprus etc. if we included the Middle Ages, which I strongly recommend against.
If the opening sentence should be maintained as the scope, it should be List of royal families in/from the Arabian Peninsula in the 20th century, and we need at least 3 WP:RS to agree on the geographical scope of Arabian Peninsula. Otherwise, it will still be WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, ambiguous, subjective, arbitrary, and unsupported, and thus continue to fail WP:LISTCRIT. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:16, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Arab" is not really too vaugue. The article needs a lot of work, but it should be kept. Agree with Alexandermcnabb.
Vyvagaba (talk) 22:03, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think renaming the article as List of Arab royal houses would help, we can devide them to current and former royal houses. Vyvagaba (talk) 22:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmgelli Cemetery[edit]

Cwmgelli Cemetery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Run of the mill cemetery that fails WP:GNG. No significant details I could find. Nagol0929 (talk) 14:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Change !vote to Merge to Treboeth as a WP:ATD: there is still salvageable information and it deserves a mention even if it should not have its own article. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 16:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: merging is now impractical because a lot of information has been added. The article just passes WP:GNG. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 18:08, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I put this up there as a starter. I didn't realise that a page had to be created in such a fully rendered form. I've added more detail and will continue to do so in the hope that the page remains. Thanks for you help with this. Orange Sorbet (talk) 10:29, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, no need to be sorry. Many pages start small and per WP:DEMOLISH, we shouldn't be deleting articles just because the article is new and unfinished. The concern here, however, is that there is not really anything that can be said about the subject that is notable for an article. It might be better to put a few lines about the cemetery in the Treboeth article, which does not mention it. I'll happily change my !vote to "merge" on that basis. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:04, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or Merge if not enough content for a separate article) - It is on the register of historic parks and gardens so seems notable enough, and more sources can be found by searching alternative spellings - cwmgelly, or cwm-gelli. EdwardUK (talk) 13:29, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think we have a policy that says being a registered historical park and garden is sufficient indication of notability for inclusion, but I'd be interested to see precedence or policy if there is one. JMWt (talk) 15:09, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The register was given statutory status in 2022, before which it was unlikely to have been considered as indicating notability. It usually means there will be descriptions on the Cadw and Coflein websites similar to those given for listed buildings, and though this is no guarantee of notability, these can be helpful for passing GNG, but this would still depend on what other sources are added. EdwardUK (talk) 18:15, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    that seems to me to be contradicting what you previously said It is on the register of historic parks and gardens so seems notable enough. If you are not offering presence on the register as a sign of notability, what did you mean please? As far as I can tell, listed buildings are not presumed notable by WP:NBUILD so I can't really see why a park or other urban open space would be under a similar designation. JMWt (talk) 18:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Having checked the sources again Merge may be the better option. my original statement was not worded very well – the so seems notable enough should have been at the end. It is more that I think a heritage listing indicates that a site is not non-notable – the content is worth mentioning, so even if the other sources do not provide enough for it to be a separate article it could still be used as part of a wider article (in this case the nearest town/settlement), rather than deleting. A brief search suggested the cemetery is mentioned in various other sources though on closer examination these are generally about the people buried there so would probably not pass the "No inherited notability" guideline. EdwardUK (talk) 23:23, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes we do. WP:GEOFEAT: Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available, are presumed to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:16, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Treboeth and redirect, although I'd favour leaving it at least a few days to give its authors a chance to find new sources. It is only a Grade II listed garden, and it seems likely that the Grade I/II*/II listing categories for parks and gardens are modelled on those of listed buildings. There may not be an established rule, but my hunch is that articles on Grade I listed buildings would usually survive a deletion nomination, and those on Grade II listed buildings usually would not, unless there was other evidence of notability. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Listed garden so clearly meets WP:GEOFEAT. That goes for all categories of listing, not just Grade I (and yes, gardens are listed at I, II* and II just like buildings). -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:13, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems perverse that WP:GEOFEAT specifies that listed parks and gardens are presumed to be notable but that listed buildings are not. However, this is not the place to debate that issue. I don't object to retaining the article on that basis. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:29, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't. It specifies that all heritage listed man-made features are notable. Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available, are presumed to be notable. That clearly includes buildings and has been held to include buildings at pretty much all AfDs on the subject (usually with the exception of editors who'd like to delete as many articles as possible). -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Treboeth as things stand but keep if one more source with indepth coverage is found. Just falls short of passing the significant coverage requirement of WP:GNG. The following ought to count as one of the sources towards notability, namely, a 670 word report on the cemetery's opening in the Swansea Journal and South Wales Liberal (28 Sept. 1895 page 4). The article details and comments on the site's cost, acreage, capacity, drainage, the lie of the land, has a brief description of the chapel, proposed tree planting & flower borders. The article notes that it is "the first public cemetery in Wales in which no portion is consecrated", adding to its notability. The listing at CADW should also count so we have two sources providing independent, reliable, indepth coverage. There's shorter pieces on the planning and financing of the cemetery in The Cardiff Times (17 Aug. 1889) and the South Wales Daily News (17 Aug. 1892), but that's all I've managed to find. Rupples (talk) 04:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Spent some time thinking about this and after further consideration I'm changing my opinion from merge to keep. I didn't properly examine the WP:GEOFEAT case put forward by Necrothesp. The CADW website states that Historic parks and gardens are part of Wales’s national identity. They enrich the texture and pattern of our landscapes and form a valuable record of social, cultural and economic change. . . . Registration identifies parks and gardens which are of special historic interest to Wales. . . . These nationally important places provide a connection with the lives and ambitions of past generations. A search of CADW listings here [1] under asset type 'Historic Parks and Gardens' with site type 'cemetery' revealed only 6 listed cemeteries for the whole of Wales. The cemetery is notable and sources are adequate to write a short but informative, encyclopedic article. Rupples (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, and the fact that this article is now bigger than Treboeth, making a merger impractical. DankJae 15:03, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion seems divided between those wanting to Keep this article and those advocating a Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, changing by view from merge, in view of the expansion of the article. In particular, the paragraph about consecration, which reflects the tensions between the established church and Non-conformist groups which led to the Welsh Church Act 1914 – but I'd like a modern source for this. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:57, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. and I hope those editors arguing for Keeping this article can spend some time improving the condition of the article that they wanted to save. Liz Read! Talk! 22:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Red–red coalition[edit]

Red–red coalition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication there is any notability of the term. No sources. UtherSRG (talk) 15:47, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Germany. UtherSRG (talk) 15:47, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, one of the many colour combinations for a German governing coalition. In theory, the colour/flag descriptive names could all be merged there, but standalone articles can list all the previous examples for such a combination. de:Rot-rote Koalition has some sources that show the term is in use, for example [2]. —Kusma (talk) 16:24, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In use does not confer notability. Is there significant coverage of the term? Or is all of the significant coverage about specific coalitions? - UtherSRG (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know whether there is significantly more about the term than a dicdef (merging to German governing coalition could be a reasonable option) but the question whether there should be such red-red coalitions was widely discussed at the time ("can a democratic party enter a coalition with the successor party of the East German communists?"), and so there are multiple RS on JSTor that can be used to write a more in-depth article about this type of coalition, for example [3], [4], [5]. And these are just a few sources in English from the search linked from the template above. —Kusma (talk) 16:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The German page is very well-sourced, and other languages aren't well sourced but talk about how this is a valid German political term. Not !voting since I haven't reviewed the sources there yet, but articles aren't not notable because they're not sourced, and there's every indication this one could be having reviewed the Spiegel article above. SportingFlyer T·C 17:03, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:47, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaur Training[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Dinosaur Training (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only reference was written by the creator of the program, and a WP:BEFORE search didn't reveal any significant coverage of it in independent reliable sources. Hatman31 (talk) 23:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the first AFD was no consensus that was from 2006 and the keep rationale would not stand up today... "I have heard of this" and "this is a notable training program" are not valid, at least not anymore. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 16:36, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and El cid. Promotional essay which should've been deleted back in 2006. Fails GNG, since no coverage from independent reliable sources can be found. CycloneYoris talk! 23:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:37, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Sight (Clement-Davies novel)[edit]

The Sight (Clement-Davies novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN book, fails WP:GNG UtherSRG (talk) 19:13, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:

    A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

    1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
    Sources

    1. Lester, Talia (March–April 2004). "The Sight". Stone Soup. Vol. 32, no. 4. pp. 20+. Archived from the original on 2023-06-14. Retrieved 2023-06-14.

      The review notes: "Another brilliant twist in The Sight is the ending. In most stories, the hero or heroine is completely victorious. The Sight includes a dramatic and stunning conclusion that keeps you on the edge of your seat until you read the last gripping words."

    2. St. John, Anne (July–August 2002). "David Clement-Davies: The Sight". The Horn Book Magazine. Vol. 78, no. 4. p. 455. Archived from the original on 2023-06-14. Retrieved 2023-06-14 – via Gale.

      The review notes: "The novel's many messages are delivered with a heavy hand. Too often, the author relies on eavesdropping as a way to convey information; the manufactured fantasy names are difficult to keep straight at times; and there are a few predictable plot turns (as well as one rather underhanded one). But the depiction of wolf culture is fascinating; the rich backdrop of physical and historical references adds texture; and the intense writing style sweeps the reader up into the story."

    3. "The Sight". Publishers Weekly. Vol. 249, no. 7. 2002-02-18. p. 98. Archived from the original on 2023-06-14. Retrieved 2023-06-14.

      The review notes: "Despite sophisticated language and some complex concepts, such as the origins of evil, the author's clever plot twists (such as which wolf eventually claims to be Wolfbane) make the thick novel well worth the commitment. Strong female characters also provide a refreshing change to the often male-dominated science-fiction/fantasy field."

    4. Lannon, Linnea (2002-09-29). "Children's Books". The New York Times Book Review. Archived from the original on 2023-06-14. Retrieved 2023-06-14.

      The review notes: "Like Fire Bringer, this novel is rife with religious, mythological and folk-tale references, a considerable cast and a final confrontation between good and evil. All of which is fine, up to a point. Younger readers will gloss over the Christlike suffering of Larka, the she-wolf heroine, and most certainly the allusions to ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia; The Sight is an epic escape that explores the power of stories and imagination. But for more sophisticated young readers -- and the adults the publisher must be hoping will cross over -- the relentless reworking of everything from Communism to Little Red Riding Hood is wearying, especially given that it's the second coming -- er, time around."

    5. "The Sight". Kirkus Reviews. Vol. 70, no. 4. 2002-02-15. Archived from the original on 2023-06-14. Retrieved 2023-06-14.

      The review notes: "Above all, this is a story about stories: how they educate, enrich, and comfort, but also entrap within the dead weight of myth. As much as the reader will learn about wolves, close attention will reveal even more about what it means to be human. A flawed but heartbreaking work of imaginative vision."

    6. Rodman, Blake Hume; Pricola, Jennifer (August–September 2002). "The Sight". Education Week. Vol. 14, no. 1. EBSCOhost 7311313. Archived from the original on 2023-06-14. Retrieved 2023-06-14.

      The review notes: "Indeed, the Sight is strong in Larka, a pure-white she-cub who alone possesses the power to destroy Morgra and end the evil quest. Some readers may find the mysterious prophecy confusing or stumble through the complicated themes, but most will be intrigued by Clement-Davies’ adventurous and rewarding epic."

    7. Mitnick, Eva (2002). Jones, Trevelyn E. (ed.). "The Sight". School Library Journal. Vol. 48, no. 6. p. 134. EBSCOhost 6744888.

      The review notes: "However, much of the tension is lost by a convoluted plot and a multitude of interminable scenes, mostly discussions between characters, that will make many readers either skip ahead or abandon the book entirely. However, this may be a good choice for readers who have outgrown Brian Jacques's "Redwall" series (Philomel) and are ready for a more complicated animal fantasy."

    8. Decker, Charlotte (September–October 2002). "The Sight". Book Report. Vol. 21, no. 2. ISSN 0731-4388. EBSCOhost 7302899.

      The review notes: "The plot revolves around the Sight, which bestows the power to foresee the future and use it for revenge. The length of the book may deter all but the most devoted fantasy reader"

    9. Gustafson, Diane (2006-11-26). "On wing or afoot, animals abound in fantasies". Redding Record Searchlight. Archived from the original on 2023-06-14. Retrieved 2023-06-14 – via Newspapers.com.

      The review notes: "Finally, "The Sight," by David Clement-Davies, was highly recommended by our library's Teen Book Discussion Group. The story is set in war-torn 15th-century Transylvania, during the reign of Vlad Dracula. This intriguing, gothic backdrop adds to the mysterious nature of the tale, and magic and the supernatural also play a huge part in the story. ... This is a classic good-versus- evil theme, with a twist, that older teens will have trouble putting down until it's done."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Sight to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 09:51, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to see some assessment of sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The reviews pass WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK#1. Per NBOOK, full-length reviews count towards notability. The magazines and newspapers (e.g., NYT, School Library Journal, and Publishers Weekly) are longstanding publications that has sufficient editorial policies to demonstrate a reputation for fact-checking & accuracy mandated per WP:RS and are independent. Some of reviews lean on the shorter side at a paragraph and is borderline meeting SIGCOV, but others are longer; the NYT source is four paragraphs and another review linked above by Cunard provides two paragraphs. Similarly, these sources also likewise meet GNG as well, and overall this should be kept. VickKiang (talk) 02:26, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion.

Feel free if you think a redirect from this page title to one of his musical groups is appropriate. Liz Read! Talk! 22:36, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jan-Sören Eckert[edit]

Jan-Sören Eckert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN musician, no indication he passes WP:MUSIC UtherSRG (talk) 18:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:31, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any opinion about a redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No indication of importance. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Been on the cat:nn list for 10+ years and never been updated. scope_creepTalk 22:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Travis[edit]

Daniel Travis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:NACTOR. He has only one significant role in Open Water. Needs two or more significant roles in order to be eligible. The Film Creator (talk) 23:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 00:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Meltdown Records[edit]

Meltdown Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced for over a decade. Lacks sufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 18:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Slovakia. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 18:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Started to edit the article - only really relevant ot the New Zealand music scene and nothing related to Slovakia NealeWellington (talk) 09:42, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge I note there are a number of articles about minor New Zealand recording studios and record companies. As individual items they wouldn't meet WP:GNG but as a collective history of the New Zealand industry would. I recommend that the article be kept until these can be collated andm merged into a single item on the industry.NealeWellington (talk) 10:33, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note from the reference there is likely to be more information in publications such as the Manawatu Evening Standard, Rip-it-up magazine, and the Massey University Student Association publications of the era with which to improve this article, none of which I have access to. NealeWellington (talk) 10:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:45, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Danilo Cocks[edit]

Danilo Cocks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 22:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. More specifically, fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:SPORTBASIC. Longhornsg (talk) 19:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:34, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Laurent Samer[edit]

Laurent Samer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Enderson George[edit]

Enderson George (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 22:43, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:32, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cornelius Butcher[edit]

Cornelius Butcher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Three international caps for Saint Lucia. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:31, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An Hyok-il[edit]

An Hyok-il (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:GNG. Lack of WP:SIGCOV Simione001 (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We Do Not Negotiate with Terrorists[edit]

We Do Not Negotiate with Terrorists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Defunct indie band of limited notability. Both references are dead, and I have been unable to find any in-depth coverage. I have found one interview but no indication that WP:BAND is met. —Kusma (talk) 21:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 20:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Greenidge[edit]

Troy Greenidge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. This would be a good start towards meeting GNG if it were not published by CONCACAF. JTtheOG (talk) 19:26, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 20:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Man (vol. 4)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Iron Man (vol. 4) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It is not clear why this volume is so notable to have its own page. The relevant information are already present in Iron Man (comic book)#Volume 4 Redjedi23 (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Andrés López Forero. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:42, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Ball of Letters[edit]

The Ball of Letters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unsourced article about a stand-up comedy DVD, not making any strong claim to passing WP:NFILM. The attempted claims of notability here belong to the tour, not to the DVD record of it -- number of people who attended the performances, an award for the performances -- but are still not supported by sources, and there's no particular claim that the DVD has any standalone notability as a film at all.
There's just nothing here that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt the DVD from having to have any WP:GNG-worthy coverage in reliable media sources. Bearcat (talk) 18:28, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Procedural close. With a well-attended AFD less than a month ago that had overwhelming consensus to keep, and with very similar deletion rationale, this nomination is out of order. (non-admin closure) Frank Anchor 19:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raiders–Seahawks rivalry[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Raiders–Seahawks rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

If the Diamondbacks-Rockies rivalry is deleted for 8 credible sources cited, then why is this rivalry still a discussion? both teams are in entirely different conferences and the rivalry has little to no bearing on either side today, it likely played a role whilst Seattle was in the AFC PontiacAurora (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete:Besides several notable trades or signings on both sides with the likes of Gabe Jackson and Marshawn Lynch, what relevance does this rivalry have today? why not simply consolidate it into another page? there have been numerous articles deleted for similar lacking references such as Diamondbacks-Rockies, Astros-Mariners, etc... There are roughly the same amount here. I suggest consolidating it into the Seahawks' team page.PontiacAurora (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

there are only four cited pieces to this? how is this page still on wikipedia? 1. [1] 2. [2] 3. [3] 4. [4] There's no way this is still relevant PontiacAurora (talk) 18:25, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Barron, Chris (October 29, 1998). Written at Kirkland. "Raiders rivalry revisited". Kitsap Sun. Bremerton, Washington. Retrieved June 6, 2023. It's Raider Week. In the 1980s, it meant everything. Hate. Anger. Intensity. Bo vs. The Boz. Largent vs. Hayes. Five Monday Night Football battles.
  2. ^ Corkran, Steve (November 6, 2006). Written at Seattle. "Seahawks' hate affair with Raiders lingers". Oakland Tribune. Oakland. Retrieved June 5, 2023. Twenty-nine years after an innocuous start, no other team evokes the emotions in the Seahawks and their fans that the Raiders do. This holds true, even though the two teams no longer play in the same division and don't meet twice a season, as they did for a quarter century.
  3. ^ Condotta, Bob (November 24, 2022). Written at Renton. "Looking back at the rivalry between Seahawks and Raiders". The Seattle Times. Seattle. Retrieved June 5, 2023. Sunday marks the just second time the Raiders have played a regular-season game in Seattle in 16 years, a fact that only accentuates how visits from the Silver and Black used to be a highlight — if not THE highlight — of every Seahawk season.
  4. ^ Bell, Gregg (November 7, 2006). Written at Seattle. "Raider Busters ride again". The Vancouver Sun. Vancouver. Associated Press. Retrieved June 5, 2023. Seahawks enjoy a long and cherished rivalry with Oakland enemies
  • Comment. I do not have much interest in American football rivalries, but I would like to remind everyone that notability does not expire. The nominator says "it likely played a role whilst Seattle was in the AFC". If the rivalry was notable in the past, it remains notable today. The same point applies to other articles about rivalries: if the rivalry was ever notable, it remains notable today. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It meets WP:GNG, just needs more content is all. Notable events that have happened can be placed in. Also, two nominations in a single month? Shouldn't there be a time limit on these types of nominations? Conyo14 (talk) 18:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per WP:SKCRIT 2c: "making nominations of the same page with the same arguments immediately after they were strongly rejected in a recently closed deletion discussion". This same article was nominated by the same user 5 days ago, resulting in keep consensus from 8 keep votes and 0 delete votes. PK-WIKI (talk) 19:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football, California, and Washington. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:18, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - per above and also because this is the wrong venue. Essentially, if you disagree with the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raiders–Seahawks rivalry then you should request an overturning of the close at User talk:Aszx5000 and, if not satisfied, submit a request for review at WP:DRV. As this was closed as 'keep', we don't generally allow a creation of a second discussion as this defeats the purpose of the previous discussion and will just result in people opening new discussions every time they disagree with a result, which we can't allow. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:21, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep: It's pretty clear, based on the AfD that was closed 5 days ago, that this topic is considered notable. There exists quite a bit of WP:SIGCOV (as shown in the last AfD) even if it hasn't all been added to the article. This is not how a previous AfD outcome should be contested. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:47, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep the last nomination by the same user was closed five days ago as an unanimous keep. Alvaldi (talk) 19:48, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 19:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Highking Roberts[edit]

Highking Roberts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 17:33, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 19:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Casanova[edit]

Jordan Casanova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. It appears the subject received a scholarship to play at Angelina College in Texas, but I could not find SIGCOV on his club, college, or international careers. JTtheOG (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 17:24, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tevin Gamboa[edit]

Tevin Gamboa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 17:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was procedural keep. It’s currently bold linked from the main and as such, it cannot be at AfD. Wait until it is off the main page.‎. Schwede66 19:02, 19 June 2023 (UTC) look[reply]

Carberry highway collision[edit]

Carberry highway collision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
As it is, this fails WP:NEVENTS. At best, it is WP:TOOSOON. To quote WP:EVENTCRIT:

A violent crime, accidental death, or other media events may be interesting enough to reporters and news editors to justify coverage, but this will not always translate into sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article. Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect... Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. (Emphasis in original)

Furthermore, the sources are mostly from Canada and UK. This does not appear to have global reach.

If/when this goes to trial, or if there are parliamentary hearings about it, then it might meet NEVENTS. But as it is right now, it's just a tragic event. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep No global coverage? Numerous international sources have covered this: Aljazeera, CNN and DW News among many others. This definitely passses WP:EVENT as this is clearly notable on its own. Is there an article for every mass shooting under 3 deaths? If that is your point here Laval daycare bus crash should be deleted then if the death toll is too small to be considered "notable". The circumstances are what make this pass this; clearly is notable. Not WP:TOOSOON either, there is tons of coverage on this and information available, the article clearly reflects this. This definitely passes WP:EVENTCRIT, as this is a major fatality incident in Canada and compared to other places of the world this does not happen every day, therefor it warrants inclusion, if this is magically not sufficient then merge to the Carberry article as this is notable in its own right either way. I would withdraw this nomination if I were you as you appear to be confused on the criteria for inclusion. 173.53.21.52 (talk) 18:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to add that major changes to the Trans-Canada highway are now being debated across Canada. It is probable that major policy changes to a transcontinental highway will occur in the aftermath of this event. Deleting this story now does not seem appropriate as the event is still developing. McCoshen24 (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Simply appearing in newspapers for a few days does not confer notability. WP:N requires WP:SUSTAINED coverage after the event has left the news cycle. As the nom tells us, the vast majority of events such as this are not automatically notable. For example, WP:NEVENTS tells us Events that have a noted and sourced permanent effect of historical significance are likely to be notable. This includes, for example, natural disasters that result in widespread destruction, since they lead to rebuilding, population shifts, and possible impact on elections. No WP:SUSTAINED? No WP:EVENTCRIT? Don't create the article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:45, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 17:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Forum (Dubai)[edit]

The Forum (Dubai) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be notable * Pppery * it has begun... 16:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not look notable Vyvagaba (talk) 21:56, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 17:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pier 8[edit]

Pier 8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be notable. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:48, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 17:20, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Emerge Desktop[edit]

Emerge Desktop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN windows shell. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 16:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 17:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

National-revolutionary movement[edit]

National-revolutionary movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems like OR by synthesis, written by an adherent of this supposed ideology. I can't find academic sources in English (it's an impossible thing to google) and after I removed the uncited content there wasn't much left. See also the comments at Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#National-revolutionary_movement. Prezbo (talk) 16:40, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Prezbo (talk) 16:40, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as rambling nonsense. Mccapra (talk) 20:54, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Poorly constructed OR from someone who seems to have taken a mundane term “revolutionary nationalists”, meaning nationalists who happen to seek major changes in government and society, to be some form of distinct phenomenon. It does not appear to be a notable topic but rather a tangential connection between two topics: nationalism, and people who support revolutions. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:01, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Blatant violation of WP:SYNTH. Partofthemachine (talk) 22:53, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 17:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eleven Cities Cycling Tour[edit]

Eleven Cities Cycling Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cycling tour with no assertion of notability. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 17:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tanglewood Music Festival[edit]

Tanglewood Music Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redundant article. Suggest to redirect/merge to Tanglewood. Yinglong999 (talk) 07:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It would take work, but the Tanglewood facility and the music festival are indeed different concepts and there would be benefits to having them separate. We already have Tanglewood Music Center as a separte article, which covers the summer academy as an event. - Fuzheado | Talk 18:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum – the article for the music festival exists for five other languages: es, fr, ja, pt, ru. - Fuzheado | Talk 18:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep a Google book search shows a great amount of Un-depth coverage in reliable independent sources. Mccapra (talk) 20:56, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Inuit religion#Deities. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tekkeitsertok[edit]

Tekkeitsertok (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looking up on Tekkeitsertok only comes up with other Wikis refering to the text in Wikipedia or with references to the Sweet Tooth comics or to the TV show it originated. The only source of the article is "Albert Tuktuvit, Berlin University of Northern Studies". However, there is no such University - at most, a center for North American Studies at a Berlin University. Furthermore, I could not find any references to a Albert Tuktuvit. Hugo Lima (talk) 15:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Religion. Hugo Lima (talk) 15:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This deity was not created for Sweet Tooth, if that is the implication in the nomination, as this article predates the creation of that comic by a number of years. I also own one print source (the 1994 English edition of The Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology) that does have a small entry for Tekkeitsertok confirming much of the information in this stub. That said, the sourced content is scant enough that a Redirect to Inuit religion#Deities where this deity is already included might be a good option. Rorshacma (talk) 14:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Inuit religion#Deities. I was unable to find any sources other than the Larousse Encyclopedia entry (available here). Sojourner in the earth (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Inuit religion#Deities. Like a lot of the Inuit pantheon on Wikipedia it's poorly sourced. Unfortunately, most references like The Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology, were written by someone who thought all Inuit were the same. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 21:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Melih Sezgin[edit]

Melih Sezgin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability issues, only can be found on IMDB and their own accounts. -Lemonaka‎ 02:04, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG.--Kadı Message 18:52, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with the comment above about the Turkish translations of sources using Gsearch. Could be notable, but I'm not confident enough to !vote. Oaktree b (talk) 13:42, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 17:14, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Otero[edit]

Melissa Otero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. All references appear to be passing mentions or listings. UtherSRG (talk) 12:16, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 17:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of audiovisual works related to Spiritist phenomena[edit]

List of audiovisual works related to Spiritist phenomena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A list of ghost movies, in most cases with little or no actual link to Spiritism, just about the same (much older) topics which also formed the basis for Spiritism. WP:OR/WP:COATRACK, apparently translated from Portuguese. Fram (talk) 14:25, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added this to fix the broken link in the popular culture section of Spiritism, which I also copied from Portuguese. If this gets deleted here, then I'll nominate the original for deletion too. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You should nominate it now. I don’t know if ptwiki has WP:COATRACK but I’m sure it has some rule against articles being random collections of information with no particular connection to a supposed main topic. Dronebogus (talk) 16:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete poor quality, roughly translated article with no reason to exist. Dronebogus (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't object to the idea or benefit to researchers, but these types of lists are never ending and are best suited for publishing elsewhere. IMDb has a search function with topic check boxes, for example. 5Q5|✉ 12:52, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. It's appreciated, StonyBrook that you moved sources mentioned in the discussion to the article being discussed. That doesn't always happen. Liz Read! Talk! 17:10, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

D'Molls[edit]

D'Molls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN band, fails WP:BAND. UtherSRG (talk) 11:49, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United States of America, and Illinois. UtherSRG (talk) 11:49, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete Unless we can locate sources in paper files, this is all I see [6] for RS. Not seeing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:ORGCRIT. Per WP:HEY, the previous state of lackluster sourcing has been improved since I and others have added an array of independent reliable sources which back up much of what was in the article already, and added info that wasn't there. [7] The sources point to the fact that this band seems to have had a strong impact on people back in the later glam-rock era, even being noticed outside the US. [8] While it seems that their albums never charted, this is not the only yardstick for inclusion in WP:BAND (see #1). This is certainly not a case of a garage band seeking publicity—they were signed to a major record label in the 80s. Something has to be said for their song receiving heavy MTV play. A number of personnel were involved in various other successful bands of the era, some of which are linked, implying that their output here was also of a similar calibur. [9] Other activities of the bandmates were noted by these sources, such as a few books written by the drummer that were reviewed. [10] Best, StonyBrook babble 20:37, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment the signing with Atlantic seems to be the critical factor here. WP:BAND#5 requires two albums. BUT the article is loose about the timing of the record contract vs the release of their first album. If the article clearly said (with sources) there are two releases on Atlantic, I'd vote keep.
    • Allmusic says Warped was on Atlantic
    • Allmusic says D'Molls was on Rock Candy Records which isn't a major label
    • the article suggests the Rock Candy release is a re-release.
    • evidence of release on Atlantic here but that's very WP:OR.
    Oblivy (talk) 01:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found the following: The band, which moved to Los Angeles a few years ago, released "Warped", its second album for Atlantic Records, over the summer."[11] "Second" implies there was a first, which could only mean their debut album D'Molls was also on the same label, so I added this fact to the article. StonyBrook babble 11:32, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me. I think the article could actually be a bit more definitive on D'Molls being their first album (the "Careers and Luck" Tribune article is confusingly worded, but the second cite supports this). Note that there's a non-paywall version at[12]. Oblivy (talk) 12:44, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that reference Oblivy. Switched now. StonyBrook babble 15:09, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Given the new sources presented in this AFD. Liz Read! Talk! 17:07, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Forest, Wildlife & Environment Department, Gilgit-Baltistan[edit]

Forest, Wildlife & Environment Department, Gilgit-Baltistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, with both sources being from the department. I couldn't find any reliable sources online. A PROD was contested. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 11:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:10, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Design Society[edit]

The Design Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Significant notability concerns for over 13 years. Needs a review to decide on notability. UtherSRG (talk) 10:56, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 United Kingdom Conservative Party by-elections[edit]

2023 United Kingdom Conservative Party by-elections (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Duplication of material already contained in individual by-election articles:

Unclear what purpose or unique information this combined article provides separate to the individual articles. Additionally, the titling of the article is wrong as none of the elections take place in June. — Czello (music) 09:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: since starting this AfD the article has been moved to 2023 United Kingdom by-elections. I don't think this should alter the argument I make above as it's still a duplication of information and we don't have similar articles for other years (other than the oddity Andrew Gray references below). — Czello (music) 16:56, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United Kingdom. — Czello (music) 09:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are some overlapping issues around the Mid Beds and Selby by-elections (both MPs resigned because they didn't get peerages in Johnson's honours list), and a bit of overlap with the Uxbridge by-election (which is from Johnson resigning), but the Somerton by-election is unrelated, just coincident in timing. I think the overlap in issues can be dealt with fine within the individual by-election articles. The Mid Beds and the Selby articles do have a bit of text that repeats, but that's not a problem. Thus, there is no need for a separate article. Bondegezou (talk) 10:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These things are not typically grouped together and any information in this article will likely just duplicate the four individual articles. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:54, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Reduplication of article as per others. Also not standard practice so far. — Thunderstorm008 (talk · contributions) 15:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that delete is more appropriate - I think the contextual background can stay in the investigation page, and we can link back to it as appropriate. We do have one article covering a group of closely related by-elections - 1986 Northern Ireland by-elections - but in that case all fifteen were on the same day, and were deliberately set up to be an attempt at a de-facto referendum on a specific question. This doesn't really seem to be a comparable situation. Andrew Gray (talk) 16:40, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article has already been moved several times which will make closing this discussion a bit more complicated. Liz Read! Talk! 03:19, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Move - I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea to create an article about the by-elections of UK in 2023, as we already have 3 confirmed, and are likely to see one in Mid Bedfordshire and Rutherglen and Hamilton West . But I don't think it's warranted to have one like this, and would therefore support a deletion or move. Thomediter (talk) 23:19, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Covered by individual articles. Also it is not particularly notable historically for multiple by-elections to be held on the same day, let alone within a short time of each other. Dunarc (talk) 22:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. I like to honor BLP's wishes to delete an article about them but there seems to be some doubt whether the requesting editor is the subject of the article and there is a clear consensus to Keep this article. Liz Read! Talk! 07:48, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Akhil Maheshwari[edit]

Akhil Maheshwari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominating on behalf of an IP editor on the talk page who claims to be the subject of the article. I am myself !vote as very weak keep if the identity of the IP editor can be confirmed, otherwise as keep. Note that the subject appears to pass WP:NPROF C5 as holding a named chair at a major university. The citation record is marginal for WP:NPROF C1 via citations, but the activism with Global Newborn Society probably contributes some notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:47, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Issues connected to the article were earlier discussed at [13]. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:55, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Medicine. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:47, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Not sure rather if it's on a behalf of an IP editor. CastJared (talk) 08:19, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:14, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The subject has logged in and commented here. Copying, with some minor formatting not to break this page, to be sure closer sees it. Star Mississippi 03:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC) Please delete this page named after me immediately. My impressions of Wikipedia have turned out to be very different - when I was asked, I thought that it'd be a new age Encyclopedia Brittanica. But at least my case, it became insulting as if I personally wanted to have this page. I don't - it is always the work that speaks, not propoganda. Have any of the wiki editors visited Africa and seen dying babies? It is very easy to talk from a desk. I also think that we need to be careful as an internet-based effort is not always protected from recognition as abuse. This IP address is a local office computer. Please have no confusion as if I am using a personal computer to ask for something. May God bless you. Akhil Maheshwari Jhuma1971 (talk) 03:02, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment that the Jhuma1971 account has previously said on their talk page that they are "a software engineer from New Delhi and frequently visit the United States", so not the subject of the article. I am not sure what to make of this. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 06:32, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:PROF#C5 and the named professorship at Johns Hopkins. The issue at hand appears to be the subject's inability to maintain the article in the promotional state they prefer [14], and the valid efforts of other Wikipedia editors including User:Randykitty and User:Theroadislong to cut back the promotionalism. That is not a good reason for deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:14, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The subject passes WP:NPROF as a named professor. Getting upset and requesting deletion because the subject's preferred promotional version of the article was reverted is not a good-faith use of WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Curbon7 (talk) 18:36, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThe subject undeniably meets the fifth criteria of WP:NPROF, as they hold a distinguished named professorship at Johns Hopkins University.AmusingWeasel (talk) 08:41, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Passes WP:NPROF. It seems that we are dealing with a UPE here, who is trying to impersonate Maheshwari. Maliner (talk) 10:42, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Rahm Cook[edit]

Christina Rahm Cook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks all actual notability, sources are press releases, paid-for articles, passing mentions, not independent, sale listings, ... This may look like an independent good source, but it is the "magazine" from Elysian, a luxury brand which organised the very show they are reporting on, so not an independent source after all. Fram (talk) 07:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom - I first came here to contest but it is clear to me the nomination is correct and justified. Also of note is that the books authored are self-published. Dorsetonian (talk) 07:57, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is lack of notable impact. CastJared (talk) 08:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original submission was primarily fabricated sources; seo blog "guest posts" with fake authors and brand paid placement. Details of the subject shift depending on the press; seems to just be a self-published "author" that frequently self-promotes. Researching other potential sources through searches reveals no other reliable material, although there are lawsuits and MLM claims. Sam Kuru (talk) 12:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:40, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:04, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shree Gyanodaya Secondary School[edit]

Shree Gyanodaya Secondary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Maliner (talk) 06:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:38, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MaryLou Driedger[edit]

MaryLou Driedger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable per ANYbio Edit.pdf (talk) 06:00, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

    People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

    • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
    Sources
    1. Klassen-Wiebe, Nicolien (2021-06-07). "Children's book tells Mennonite immigration adventure" (PDF). Canadian Mennonite. Vol. 25, no. 12. p. 23. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2023-06-19. Retrieved 2023-06-19.

      The article notes: "When MaryLou Driedger uncovered a forgotten family story, she knew she had to write about it. What followed was Lost on the Prairie, her first novel for middle-school readers, published by Heritage House on May 28. ... The book is inspired by Driedger’s own grandfather, Peter Schmidt. Her great-grandparents, along with a large wave of Mennonites, emigrated from Kansas to Saskatchewan at the turn of the last century. Journeying by train, Driedger’s grandfather and his brothers were each assigned to a boxcar in which to watch the livestock and belongings. ... Driedger comes to the research and writing process with a lot of experience. Originally from Steinbach, Man., and a member of Bethel Mennonite Church in Winnipeg, she has written for children’s curricula like Jubilee and Shine, and contributed to The Mennonite Mirror magazine and the Winnipeg Free Press. She has been a columnist for 36 years at The Carillon, Steinbach’s local paper. When she retired from teaching, she decided to start writing for children."

    2. Foster, Janice (2021-06-25). "Lost on the Prairie". Canadian Review of Materials. 27 (41). Manitoba Library Association. Archived from the original on 2023-06-19. Retrieved 2023-06-19.

      The review notes: "Lost on the Prairie, by MaryLou Driedger, was inspired by the disappearance of the Winnipeg author’s grandfather en route to Saskatchewan when his boxcar was detached. With no other details available, Driedger has constructed this mystery journey. Adding credibility to the story is her extensive research of actual people and events of that time period, including the use of family members names, Peter Schmidt, Herman, Alvin and Annie, even the horses’ names Prince and Gypsy. Extensive research of sites and events during that time period that are referenced in the book add accuracy to the story."

    3. Kent, Trilby. "Sixties Girl". Quill & Quire. Archived from the original on 2023-06-19. Retrieved 2023-06-19.

      The review notes: "Despite the rudimentary structure, Driedger’s self-contained chapters – inspired by her own childhood – are well crafted and effective. For all the talk of bullying, there’s less tension in Will’s storyline. He, Aneesh, and Emmaline are consistently polite, articulate, and well-behaved middle-schoolers, and what little tension arises between them is, ultimately, easily resolved. Their dialogue, and some conversations in Laura’s sections, can also tend toward the expository and slightly forced (such as when a couple of kids discuss the poet Emily Pauline Johnson)."

    4. Sumner, Chris (2021-07-08). "MaryLou Driedger Talks About Her Book "Lost On The Prairie"". PembinaValleyOnline. Golden West Broadcasting. Archived from the original on 2023-06-19. Retrieved 2023-06-19.

      The article notes: "MaryLou Driedger has been writing for a very LONG time, in fact, you may know she was a columnist for The Carillon newspaper based in Steinbach for over 35 years, she's written for many publications and now, she's just completed a book!"

    5. MaryLou Driedger has been a columnist for The Carillon for 38 years and has contributed to the Winnipeg Free Press. Winnipeg Free Press and The Carillon articles:
      1. Norrie, Helen (2021-07-17). "Courage, resilience in boxcar boy's story". Winnipeg Free Press. Archived from the original on 2023-06-19. Retrieved 2023-06-19.

        The review notes: "Local author MaryLou Driedger used her grandfather’s story to help her write Lost on the Prairie (Wandering Fox/Heritage House, 224 pages, $15, paperback). He was left behind in a disconnected boxcar as the family travelled from Kansas to Saskatchewan. ... Peter shows resourcefulness and courage as he faces numerous hazards and learns about places (including early Winnipeg) he never knew existed. Readers ages 8-12 will find excitement on every page as they trace Peter's journey north."

      2. Ross, Jordan (2021-05-22). "Prolific columnist pens first book". The Carillon. Archived from the original on 2023-06-19. Retrieved 2023-06-19.

        The article notes: "If Manitoba’s own MaryLou Driedger keeps up her current pace, she might just give Chesterton a run for his money. Driedger, a veteran newspaper columnist and blogger, doesn’t struggle with writer’s block. ... Driedger has been a Carillon columnist for 36 years. She calculated she has produced about 1,500 columns to date. She has also contributed to the Winnipeg Free Press, and faithfully posts a new entry every morning on her blog, What Next? Not long after retiring from teaching in Hanover School Division, Driedger read a book that recommended retirees try something different."

      3. Longhurst, John (2021-06-14). "Letter discovery inspires tale of train troubles". Winnipeg Free Press. Archived from the original on 2023-06-19. Retrieved 2023-06-19.

        The article notes: "A few years ago, MaryLou Driedger came across an old letter from her grandfather, Peter Schmidt. ... Driedger, a columnist for the Steinbach Carillon and a former faith page columnist at the Free Press, was intrigued. Her curiosity led her to write Lost on the Prairie, a new children’s book that will be launched online on June 16, 7 p.m. through McNally Robinson Booksellers."

      4. Ross, Jordan (2023-04-06). "Columnist's second novel delves into 1960s". The Carillon. Archived from the original on 2023-06-19. Retrieved 2023-06-19.

        The article notes: "The twists and turns of the 1960s are the backdrop of MaryLou Driedger’s new novel, which whisks adolescent readers back to an era of rapid change with more than a few parallels to the present. ... That won’t surprise anyone who knows Driedger, a retired schoolteacher and self-described “write-aholic” who maintains a daily blog in addition to her Carillon column, Viewpoint, which has run for 38 years and counting."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow MaryLou Driedger to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 09:17, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The sources are reliable, especially Quill & Quire. I think that they show notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, performing a WP:BEFORE search shows significant coverage. FatalFit | ✉ | ✓  14:25, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The validity of the above discussion indicates that keeping the article is the right step.--ETIBARMEMMEDOV TT me 20:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. While on a pure nose count this may at first look like a "no consensus", a comprehensive analysis of proposed sources indicates that there is not GNG-level material available about this subject, and this was not refuted. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sulehri Kashif Ali[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Sulehri Kashif Ali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:45, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Routine coverage applies to WP:NCORP or an event. Anyways, there is more coverage in local language: [22], [23], [24]. At least do a proper WP:BEFORE when you're nominating this bio for the second time. BookishReader (talk) 10:06, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Routine coverage applies to all articles as it is described in WP:NOT: routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage. It is also explicitly invoked multiple times in the NSPORT guideline: must provide reports beyond routine game coverage. The type of tournament results coverage cited here is always considered routine. JoelleJay (talk) 17:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and rename to Kashif Sulehri. Reason per BookishReader. Stvbastian (talk) 23:45, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NBAD criteria. No objection to renaming. Suitskvarts (talk) 05:54, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NBAD is not a notability guideline; the relevant guidance is NSPORT, which requires GNG to be met and a GNG-contributing source to be cited in the article. JoelleJay (talk) 16:49, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    1 is a news report on PBF that quotes Sulehri without giving him SIGCOV Red XN. 2 is a routine tournament results announcement, not SIGCOV Red XN. Ditto for 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10. 4 and 7 are routine announcements that are almost entirely non-independent, primary quotes from the PBF VP Red XN. The subject fails NSPORT. JoelleJay (talk) 16:57, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the entirety of independent bytes of coverage on the subject, with all but one source being extremely brief, utterly routine recaps of his and his partner's performance at a handful of low-level tournaments. The sole source on him alone has under 25 words about him, also all in a routine announcement. Redundant phrasing/info is reduced in text but visible in the tooltips.
    From May 2010 routine tournament coverage and PBF interview in The Tribune and Dawn:

    Pakistani duo of Rizwan Azam and Kashif Sulehri marched into the final of the Maldives International Badminton Championship in Maldives on Friday. They defeated Gadi Antonino and Asuncion Kennevic of Phillipines in the semi-final, the score being 14-21, 21-11 and 21-16. The final will see them facing Sri Lanka's Karunaratne Dinuka and Karunaratne Niluka.

    Rizwan and Sulehri clinched the men’s doubles title in the tournament. They lost the first set 17-21 but made a strong comeback in the fight for the title, winning the next two sets 21-14, 21-14.

    From Aug 2010 routine tournament coverage in Nawaiwaqt and Dawn:

    Top doubles team Rizwan and Kashif won the Syrian International Series 2010 after a 21-18, 21-18 victory over Ebrahim Jafar Al Sayed Jafar and Setiawan Heri of Bahrain. The 147th ranked pair had earlier stunned favourites Shahhosseini Ali and Kheradmandi Mohammad Reza of Iran (ranked 77) 21-13, 19-21, 21-9 to secure an unexpected place in the finals.

    From 2011 routine piece on PBF in the Tribune:

    [Zero independent coverage]

    From 2016 routine tournament update in Daily Pakistan:

    Rizwan and Kashif have upset in the Nepal International Series Badminton Tournament. They have reached the men's doubles final. The Indian pair Ani Kumar Raju and Venkat Gaurav were defeated, tomorrow they will face India's Arjun MR and Ramchandra Shulak in the final.

    From 2018 routine tournament coverage in Nawaiwaqt:

    Kashif Silhari, the top international player [and ten-year-old Pakistan National Champion], won the final of the All Pakistan Abdullah Open Badminton Tournament.

    JoelleJay (talk) 18:30, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow for further discussion of the level of coverage in sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:37, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify‎. I am reluctant to draftify this article because doing so often means I see it 6 months later when its time in Draft world expires. But I hope someone will work on improving it. Liz Read! Talk! 05:49, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bell hanger[edit]

Bell hanger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I could very well be wrong here, but I can't seem to find much merit in this article. Not a single citation that this article uses links to anything, some stuff just went unsourced, and I've had trouble trying to find the sources used in general. 7 sources are also just named as advertisements. I wouldn't be opposed here for at least a move to draftspace, as it does seem to have had effort put into it, but I otherwise don't see much here. Dawnbails (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Engineering. Dawnbails (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The topic relates to communication infrastructure in residential and commercial buildings in the era before telephones and intercoms. It is a lost trade but of interest to historians of skills of early electricians. Sources will necessarily be more than a century old. Kerrisdalian (talk) 05:12, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 04:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Bell hanger is not music-related. Kerrisdalian (talk) 05:05, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. From the title was expecting to read an article on the hanging of church bells with perhaps information on the cradles, mechanics, skills needed, tools used, positioning & testing of the bells, etc. Would other readers have similar expectations? The article hints of this topic in the lead and under the Simple Bells heading but there's no further development. The Bell Hangers' Handbook is about batteries and electrical circuits, and aimed at early professional domestic electricians. In the language of today it mainly covers doorbell and alarm installation. Was the term "hanger" used rather than "installer"? To me, the article title is a bit misleading. I agree with the nominator and suggest putting this back into draft to reconsider its scope and title. Rupples (talk) 04:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Bell hanger" is the only term I have found in any historic advertising or literature for the trade described. If modern researchers have never heard of the trade, they can be excused for expecting something to do with the logistics of church bells. However, anyone building a mansion, apartment building or hotel in the 1800s hired a bell hanger if they wanted to communicate between rooms and floors. Kerrisdalian (talk) 03:36, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just performed a Google search for "bell hanger" and most hits are for decorative/ornamental bells but there is also a type of clamp to hold a rail and a strip of bells one can attach to a door knob to hear a door's opening/closing. One company describes itself as "Bell Founders, Bell Hangers, Belfry Service Engineers" and works with church bells. Perhaps the article title needs clarification by adding a descriptor in brackets? Rupples (talk) 05:11, 17 June 2023 (UTC) Struck through reply. On reviewing, realised it's not helpful. Apologies. Rupples (talk) 00:27, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Could very well have been a trade, but what's used for sourcing is an advertisement, a phone book-type listing and some articles that aren't digitized in old newspapers. Needs to be worked on a bit more. Oaktree b (talk) 13:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:42, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Mendez (Belizean footballer)[edit]

Luis Mendez (Belizean footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:01, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 04:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Surinamese records in track cycling[edit]

List of Surinamese records in track cycling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nearly empty list with the only reference not substantiating the national record. Therefore no need for this article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:15, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per whatever rationale applies or WP:IAR. It’s a broken unfinished draft that’s nearly all empty boilerplate tables. Dronebogus (talk) 16:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 04:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Asrel Sutherland[edit]

Asrel Sutherland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to find sufficient in-depth sources from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. I found this, which mentions him twice, and this, which seems okay but probably is not enough to meet GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 03:30, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:08, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Adam Friedland Show[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The Adam Friedland Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage in any of the reliable sources, only passing mentions. Brycehughes (talk) 03:01, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I think apperances of Cuomo and Neil deGrasse Tyson, along with references to the show in relation to Matty Healy and Taylor Swift in the Independent [25], Forbes [26], GQ [27], BuzzFeed [28], and I am sure others, is enough to keep. 123popos123 (talk) 03:06, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Sangarsha (TV series)#Adaptations. Liz Read! Talk! 00:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ayutha Ezhuthu (TV series)[edit]

Ayutha Ezhuthu (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Insufficient references, fails WP:GNG and WP:RPRGM, and WP:SIGCOV:

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 02:14, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 00:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ormeau Woods State High School[edit]

Ormeau Woods State High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only coverage I found relates to a medical incident of a student. There is no significant coverage of this school to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 01:15, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:50, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yellowknife Curling Centre[edit]

Yellowknife Curling Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSPORT. Not a notable topic. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe the club is notable in my opinion, as it has sent countless teams to Canada's national curling championships (the Brier and Scotties Tournament of Hearts), which have been generally considered the top level of play in the sport of curling. -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:34, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Earl Andrew, it might help if you link to the specific SNG you're citing. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:34, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete And maybe a weak one as it's not impossible to be notable with some articles like [29] but I can't figure out how to get it over the line. If anyone does, the closer should ignore my vote. SportingFlyer T·C 15:51, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG. The person who loves reading (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:46, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yevhenii Barabanov[edit]

Yevhenii Barabanov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Amateur boxers only meet notability at world champion level, not regional. Doesn't meet SIGCOV/GNG. Nswix (talk) 00:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Boxing, Martial arts, and Ukraine. Nswix (talk) 00:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Additional references are available at the corresponding article in Ukrainian at uk:Барабанов Євген Олегович. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Potentially Too soon, WP:TOOSOON. As per nom Amateur boxers only meet notability at world champion level, not regional. Otherwise subject need to meet WP:GNG, but fails. Lethweimaster (talk) 14:43, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Appeared at one world championship where he lost in the round of 16 (aka 1/8 finals) and was prevented from competing at the Olympics for violating anti-doping rules. Lacks significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. Even the Ukrainian article lacks good sources. One is an article about the Ukrainian boxers going to the Olympics, one is about Ukraine being awarded two additional Olympic boxing licenses, one is about his drug violation, and one is about the national boxing team being given a state award for appearing at the European championships. Papaursa (talk) 16:32, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:46, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sergey Lapin (boxer)[edit]

Sergey Lapin (boxer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet NBOX, SIGCOV or GNG. Regional accomplishments aren't enough and his silver medal at worlds was as a member of a team (WSB). Nswix (talk) 00:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_June_19

Leave a Reply